Allahabad High Court
Salim @ Tundal & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 3 August, 2012
Bench: Arvind Kumar (Ii)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Heard Sri Rahul Chaturvedi on behalf of revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and others in Crl. Revision No. 316 of 2006.
In Crl. Revision No. 5367/2005 none appeared for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. was present and heard.
These two criminal revisions have been connected by order of this Court dated 23.1.2006 and the question of common law has been involved in this case as to whether revision against notice under Section 111 Cr.P.C. is maintainable or not, hence these two revisions are being taken together.
In the Crl. Revision No. 316 of 2006 a Chalani report under Sections 107 and 116 Cr.P.C., Govind Nagar, Mathura was sent to City Magistrate, Mathura against 25 persons, namely- Salim @ Tundal , Munna, Guddu, Habid, Yunus, Sharif, Aman, Munnan, Naim, Nadim, Azad, Shahzad, Sultan, Saeed, Shahid, Kammo, Chunnan, Zahid, Fazlu, Zaheer, Lala, Kala, Farukh, Mustkeem, Iqbal.
On the basis of Chalani report a notice under Section 111 Cr.P.C. was issued by the City Magistrate on 11.11.2005 to above named persons directing them to appear before the court on 19.11.2005 and to show cause as to why they not be bound by a personal bond of Rs. 1 Lac and two sureties of the like amount for keeping peace for one year.
Similarly, in Criminal Revision No. 5367 of 2005 too, a Chalani report was sent by Sub Inspector of P.S. Govind Nagar, Mathura before the City Magistrate for taking action against the persons named in the Chalani report namely- Mohammad, Tanga Pahalwan, Munim, Kale, Harun, Sakan, Parhpu, Nammo, Sabir, Jabir, Mohd. Husain, Habib, Nizam, Faruk, Sahid, Vakil, Arif, Imran, Abid, Damm, Shahid, Banti, Siraj.
Satisfied by the report, City Magistrate issued notice to the above named persons directing them to appear before this court on 19.11.2005 and to show cause as to why they not be directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs.1lac and two sureties of the same amount for keeping peace for one year. Feeling aggrieved, these two criminal revisions have been filed.
It was argued by Sri Rahul Chaturvedi, Advocate that the impugned order was passed without following the provisions of Section 111 Cr.P.C. and without disclosing the substance of the information received against the revisionists.
It was mentioned in the Criminal Revision No. 5367 of 2005 that City Magistrate has not disclosed that there is any apprehension or threat of breach of peace between the parties. All the allegations are general. Notice under challenge suffers from illegality being vague as the substance of information received as set forth in wholly incomplete vague and ambiguous.
Learned A.G.A. argued that revision against the notice issued under Section 111 Cr.P.C., is not maintainable.
In the case of Bindbasni and others Vs. State of U.P. 1976 Crl. L. J. 1660 a division Bench of this Court has held that:
" The test in determining the final or interlocutory nature of an order is one and the same both in civil as well as criminal cases. That test is whether or not the order in question finally dispose of the rights of the parties or leaves them to be determined by the Court in the ordinary way. If the order does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties and the matters in dispute and leaves the suit or case still alive in which the rights of the parties have to be determined, the order will remain interlocutory irrespective of the stage at which it is passed and also irrespective of the conclusive decision of the subordinate matters with which it deals. Case law discussed.
Applying this test to an order passed by a Magistrate under Sections 107/111 Cr.P.C. that order is nothing but interlocutory because it is passed when the Magistrate is of opinion that the information received by him to the effect that any person was likely to commit breach of peace or to disturb public tranquility etc. was credible. Acting upon that information the Magistrate simply calls upon the person concerned to show cause why he should not be bound down in the prescribed manner. Neither rights of the parties are decided at that stage nor the matter in dispute is finally disposed of."
From the above observation, it is clear that the impugned order is an interlocutory order and simply a person concerned has been directed to show cause why he should not be bound down in the prescribed manner. Neither rights of the parties are decided at that stage nor the matter in dispute is finally disposed of. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that both the revisions are not maintainable because the impugned orders passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 107/111 Cr.P.C. is interlocutory order and Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. bars the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court and Sessions Judge with respect to such an order.
Consequently, both the revisions are dismissed as being not maintainable.
(Arvind Kumar Tripathi II,J.)
Dt.
Meenu
